A week or so ago I was on the Twitter. Twitter was all a
flitter over the latest IPCC report saying we have just 10 more years to act or
the damages from climate changes would become irreversible. One of the people I
follow on Twitter is Scott Adams, the creator of the highly successful Dilbert
comics. Scott Adams is also a commentator on current events. He does these live
periscopes which are broadcast on Twitter and Youtube. The latest IPCC report
featured in one of his recent discussions.
Naturally I opined with some data and observations to show
climate change, meaning the theory mankind is causing temperatures to rise
because of CO2 emissions, is a farce. Scott responded to me with the following
question, which I have paraphrased. Why should I believe you instead of all
these other people with reasonable arguments for climate change which I also
can’t evaluate?
Let’s just say I did not respond very well to that question.
I worked for 25 years as a Senior Quality Engineer for a corporation which
manufactures products for direct to consumer use as well as to other
manufacturers all over the world. A company that generates nearly 2 billion in
sales annually. I am used to dealing with management on all levels. From
Engineers to Directors and VPs. I am used to being looked upon as someone who
is completely reliable. I am used to working with people who talk the language.
When I look at things like this the truth is generally as clear as it can be.
However, I forget the world at large does not deal in statistics, graphs, charts,
time lines, and the like.
I will attempt to explain why I am convinced what NASA is
telling us about global warming or climate change is simply not true in a way I
hope Scott Adams would find persuasive. To make that argument I am focusing on
the temperature history of the United States.
The United States has the best, most complete temperature
records of any country in the world going back to the late 1800’s. The largest
repository of those records is the United States Historical Climatological Network
(the USHCN). The data I am showing comes from the USHCN database which I
downloaded from their FTP site (http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html).
For an overview of temperature recording stations around the world, see the
illustration included at the bottom of this article.
The argument I am going to make is actually very simple. It
is not possible to make this argument without using graphs, math, statistics, and
a smattering of physics. However, none of that is terribly complicated. You do
not need a degree in mathematics or chemistry to understand any of this. Let’s
get to it.
NASA GISS U.S. Temperature Record
·
NASA is telling you temperatures in the US have
been steadily rising since 1980 because we are putting more CO2 into the
atmosphere. They are telling you CO2 is like the thermostat in your house. The
more CO2 we put in the air the warmer things get. The reason for this is CO2
traps infrared heat radiation coming from all the many surfaces which comprise
the landscape and bounces it back. This causes the surface to warm more than it
otherwise would. That is the simple explanation of the greenhouse effect.
·
NASA is also telling you this is a universal condition
because the amount of CO2 in the air above the US is the same everywhere. There
may be temporary local trends which diminish or enhance this effect, but
overall the trend is towards ever increasing temperatures.
·
NASA is telling you recent temperatures are on
average 1.5° C higher in recent years than the average temperature from 1951 to
1980.
DATA from USHCN
·
I am telling you when I look at the raw,
unadjusted data from the USHCN I find it contradicts NASA completely.
·
I am telling you I found very little change in
temperatures on average from the 1951 to 1980 average in recent years. That
change would be -0.2° C on average. However, I did find a considerable amount
of variation between locations. Roughly speaking, half the locations
experienced warming up to 3° C. The other half experienced cooling down to -4°
C.
·
This isn’t fancy math or statistics. This is
simply taking averages from 1951 to 1980 and from 2000 to 2014, subtracting
them to get the difference, and making a histogram of the results.
·
By the numbers 77.9% of stations were within ±
1° C and 99.7% of stations were with ± 2° C of their 1951 to 1980 averages.
That is close to a normal bell curve which you might remember from your high
school math classes.
·
NASA’s results do fall within the range of
variability of my results from the raw, unadjusted USHCN data. Their average
falls within the upper 12% of that range. The difference between their result
and my result statistically speaking is astronomical. Achieving their results
from the raw, unadjusted data would require large adjustments to the data.
·
To understand the magnitude of any adjustments
being made to a measurement it is best to relate those adjustments to the scale
and instrumentation used to create the original measurement. Temperature
records in the US were kept in degrees Fahrenheit. Most recent measurements use
the Celsius scale. Achieving NASA’s
result would require adjustments to the temperature record with the overall
effect of increasing all recently recorded US temperatures from 2000 to 2014 unilaterally
by nearly 3° F or 1.5° C. That would be a very large adjustment indeed.
·
Most of the historical records were made using
glass thermometers, presumably with precision sufficient to read to the nearest
degree or half degree. The definition of precision is how finely graduated an
instrument is. You do not adjust for precision, you merely record to the limits
of the precision. Accuracy would depend entirely upon the specific thermometer
being used as well as whoever was taking the readings. The actual accuracy
would change each time a thermometer was replaced.
·
Speaking as a Quality Engineer who is well versed
in metrology and in analytics the idea of going back and adjusting measurements
years and decades after the fact is unheard of. It is something that is simply
not done unless you have a precise calibration record for each measuring device
used and can quantify precisely the amount and direction of inaccuracy every
time the device was used. In cases where you determine a device is inaccurate
without such precise records the only choice you have is to discard the record
if the amount of inaccuracy is unacceptable or leave it if the error is
something you can live with.
This completes the overview of my simple argument against
NASA’s version of the history of temperature in the United States. You simply
cannot say there is an overall warming effect detectable from increased CO2 in
the atmosphere in the United States when half the records show cooling trends
and the overall cooling is equal to or even greater than the overall warming. If
what NASA says about the history of temperature in the United States, which has
the most and longest records of any country in the world, is incorrect you have
to assume what NASA says about the rest of the world is incorrect.
Information from Seafriends.org.nz available at the
following link. I am only using portions of the page. The remainder is highly
informative on a variety of related subjects. I would recommend visiting.
The places where thermometers are placed were never selected with a view of collecting a representative set of temperatures from which the world's average could be calculated. They are simply located where people live, and that introduces the urban heat island effect. The two maps below, show that the world is not adequately or evenly covered. To make matters worse, many temperature stations are pretty recent and do not have a long-term record. Others do not satisfy stringent quality requirements.
